Portfolio Introduction: Kelsie Cage

As I entered my first year at the University of Denver, I was not sure what to expect for the writing courses that I had to take. Throughout high school I was always taught how to analyze works of literature, but rarely conducted hands on research papers. I quickly realized that the two are very different forms of writing. Although, I was always a strong writer, I struggled with maintaing formal writing diction and understanding how to properly conduct a research-based paper. I tend to write with detail and and like to include wordy diction. Throughout this course I have learned that research papers are based on exact material and do not need a lot of detail for the reader to understand the paper. Research papers are full of facts, examples and more or less a non-biased view. The writing does not need excess, polished words; I learned throughout the writing course how to cut out unnecessary information that was not needed. Specifically in the text based paper our writ class was instructed to write about. The assignment as giving to us from our instructor to write about an 'Interpretive' research paper in which you will derive an argument from previously-published sources. As individuals we had to find a topic and conduct a research based paper, while analyzing another authors work and incorporating it into our writing. I wanted to uncover the reason why DU no longer has a football. This arose when I was on my tour of the campus last spring and my leader stated that one of the buildings had been blown up during a football rivalry. I had heard many rumors about the abolishment of the team and wanted to find out the true meaning. When I was conducting my research I felt the need to include the football teams history and the history of the school to give my reader background information. Unfortunately, I felt this could have hindered my writing piece. Instead of it turing out to be a constructive research paper it became more like a media report. One thing that has really stuck with my in this course is the importance of revising a piece. I spent more hours revising this paper than I did on its first draft. I wanted to give my reader reason to read and become interested in my paper. I acknowledged what I did wrong throughout my piece, and attempted to edit it so that it flowed.

I struggled getting to the main point of my paper. I “beat around the bush” and put a lot of “fluff” in my paper, without meaning too. I took a lot of time revising and reconstructing my paper; I wanted to take the time to understand why I was writing the way I did and learn how I could change my style to the appropriate form. I have reflected on my strengths and I have learned to take the time to acknowledge and focus on my weaknesses throughout this course.

Furthermore, I could not override my own opinion while I was writing (this happened with my qualitative paper as well). By the end of the course I have a better understanding on how to write with a biases tone, however I still struggle with it; I have come to be aware of my perspective while writing.

The second piece our class was required to write about was: a qualitative research project in which you gather research via a qualitative method such as ethnography or interview. This piece was my favorite work. I talked about the undercover drug scene on the University of Denver's campus. I used pieces from other authors, such as a research paper that was conducted by a professor at Yale University. Although I was passionate about the topic, because I felt that this research could actually be useful to our university's administrators, like it was used for Yale; my speed bump came with the questions I asked students in an anonymous survey. Our university provides its students with an IRB introduction and research limitation. It is meant to protect the rights and safety of individuals participation in research projects that involve human subjects. The guidelines stated that drug profound questions were not allowed. It did not clearly state exactly what the qualifications of those questions were, so I assumed that there was some grey area and I could wriggle my questions to students, while obtaining the anonymous information I needed while not disobeying the IRB rules and restrictions. I found out that most of my questions slid past the “frowning upon” questions, so I was able to gain most of the information I needed. Yet, I felt cheated that I could not directly ask the members of my survey detailed information that could have positively affected my research. I had to take some of my questions out, which left me a few questions short on my survey. I understand the implications the university is under, however it took a toll on my paper. With that in mind, I did the best I could with the paper. My first draft had information that could not be publicized so my revision lead me down another path with my paper. I had to come up with other ways I could express my topic without stepping on anyones toes. This was my main challenge with this paper. I had learned from my first paper in this course how to effectively write a research paper (still learning, but better than I started off) but did not have to include interviews or a survey. This paper challenged me by understanding how to effectively incorporate my findings. My revision included reforming my topic and taking out my main points in order to follow the IRB format. Although this was a challenge for me, I tried to get my point across the best I could without using certain information. I felt that this piece was a challenge in which I learned a lot about my writing and the different styles used. I had never written a piece that was broken up in sections of method, discussion, conclusion, etc. I did like writing in the different sections, however at one point I felt that I was repeating myself a lot; which resulted me in giving up talking about some main points. In the revision I made and effort to go back and try to provide more information without the feeling that the paper was just creating repetition.

The third and final paper of this course was a group project that was: a Google Maps project that displays your rhetorical map of Denver. Our group conducted research on what DU students do around campus at night. We had two greek-life students discuss what there is to do around campus and two non-greek life students. The two sections over lapped which provided information for those students who are interested in exploring DU's night life and they can gain different perspectives through the eyes of different views.